Did Russians interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections and is such interference acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Who is “we”? The US Intelligence Agencies have established that.
Click to expand...
But have they? To my understanding, they have established that some source they believe to be Russian or a Russian surrogate tapped into the DNC email system. I have not heard that this was the only one. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn’t. I have not heard or read that any evidence is found that that particular source was Assange’s source.

If there is nothing more known than the above, (and I would certainly acknowledge any reputable additional source that has actual facts) then it would be correct to say the Russians are not above suspicion as being the source of the Wikileaks disclosures and may well be the culprit. But I think that’s the maximum that can be said about it without more information. To date, I have not heard the FBI negate the possibility that the “Russian” hack was not a “false trail” hack done by someone else. Apparently the U.S. intelligence agencies leave “false trails” when they hack into things, to make, e.g. the Russians think it was the Chinese who did it.

I suppose more information will be developed in time. Whether the public is informed of all of it is another question. If, say, U.S. intelligence has a way of discerning “false trails”, it might not want to say how that works.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Any criminal trial. Say, a drug dealer is on trial for pushing drugs, but the evidence the police have was acquired by search of his house without a warrant. It is true evidence. But it is deemed unfair to use it in a trial.
Click to expand...
Mostly true, but not 100% so. Incidental evidence discovered in the course of exercise of some other lawful purpose is most likely to be admissible.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How would Assange know that his source was not a middleman? If I were the Russians I would certainly use a middleman to hide the source.
Click to expand...
Agreed to both statements. However, Assange probably does know some of his sources are NOT Russians. But since he hasn’t identified his source, we can’t know whether that’s the case or not.

I would have thought Assange would be one of the most surveiled person on the planet, and by every means U.S. and allied intelligence has. It really is surprising to me that the U.S. government doesn’t know who gave him the DNC information. But perhaps it does, but doesn’t want Assange or his sources to know they have a pipeline into his operation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How would Assange know that his source was not a middleman? If I were the Russians I would certainly use a middleman to hide the source.
Click to expand...
So? This outrage at undefined “interference” seems just as genuine and appropriate as a cheating husband being angry at his (soon-to-be-ex) wife for going through his phone and finding evidence of his cheating.

Opposition to revealing the truth - no matter how it was obtained - is the hallmark of authoritarian groups.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Agreed to both statements. However, Assange probably does know some of his sources are NOT Russians. But since he hasn’t identified his source, we can’t know whether that’s the case or not.

I would have thought Assange would be one of the most surveiled person on the planet, and by every means U.S. and allied intelligence has. It really is surprising to me that the U.S. government doesn’t know who gave him the DNC information. But perhaps it does, but doesn’t want Assange or his sources to know they have a pipeline into his operation.
Click to expand...
Lots of perhap-s there.
 
Michael68 said:
Back to " telling the truth is interference" I don’t think many buy that.

It has already been discussed how RNC computers had superior security.

So, these are no go. What else you got?
Click to expand...
Not really. The FBI said they were hacked but oddly, no information made its way to wikileaks…yet.
 
If anyone is really interested in the OPs question, one should listen to the Senate hearing on that. It was scary to say the least.
 
Monkey1976 said:
So? This outrage at undefined “interference” seems just as genuine and appropriate as a cheating husband being angry at his (soon-to-be-ex) wife for going through his phone and finding evidence of his cheating.

Opposition to revealing the truth - no matter how it was obtained - is the hallmark of authoritarian groups.
Click to expand...
ouch…Tiger Woods
 
Sojourner003 said:
Not really. The FBI said they were hacked but oddly, no information made its way to wikileaks…yet.
Click to expand...
The FBI did say that the usual MO for the Russians is to get the info, keep it secret, and use it against various people as blackmail (which is what made the DNC etc leakages unusual).

So it may be that they just want to blackmail some people, like certain Republicans … those who would be in charge of looking into Russian interference or in a position to help the Russians ?? After all, there is only so much money they have to give as leverage; they’d need other, cheaper levers.

The plot thickens. Popcorn, anyone??
 
Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity
Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.
Click to expand...
As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
He has made the offer to the FBI and the House and Senate intelligence committees through his lawyer but has so far found no takers, the officials said.
Click to expand...
Mr. Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment.
Click to expand...
I wonder what he thinks he needs immunity for?
 

Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate

In 2014, traces of an unusual survey, connected to Facebook, began appearing on internet message boards. The boards were frequented by remote freelance workers who bid on “human intelligence tasks” in an online marketplace, called Mechanical Turk, controlled by Amazon. The “turkers,” as they’re known, tend to perform work that is rote and repetitive, like flagging pornographic images or digging through search engine results for email addresses. Most jobs pay between 1 and 15 cents. “Turking makes us our rent money and helps pay off debt,” one turker told The Intercept. Another turker has called the work “voluntary slave labor.”

…Alexander Nix, head of** Cambridge Analytica, has claimed to “have a massive database of 4-5,000 data points on every adult in America.” Immediately after the election, the company tried to take credit for the win, claiming that its data helped the Trump campaign set the candidate’s travel schedule and place online ads that were viewed 1.5 billion times. **Since then, the company has been de-emphasizing its reliance on psychological profiling.

The Information Commissioner’s Office, an official privacy watchdog within the British government, is now looking into whether Cambridge Analytica and similar companies might pose a risk to voters’ rights. The British inquiry was triggered by reports in The Observer of ties between Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica, and the Leave.EU campaign, which worked to persuade British voters to leave the European Union. While Nix has previously talked about the firm’s work for Leave.EU, Cambridge Analytica now denies that it had any paid role in the campaign.

In the U.S., where privacy laws are looser, there is no investigation. Cambridge Analytica is said to be pitching its products to several federal agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. SCL, its parent company, has new offices near the White House and has reportedly been advised by Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, on how to increase its federal business. (A spokesperson for Flynn denied that he had done any work for SCL.)…
 
Monkey1976 said:
So? This outrage at undefined “interference” seems just as genuine and appropriate as a cheating husband being angry at his (soon-to-be-ex) wife for going through his phone and finding evidence of his cheating.

Opposition to revealing the truth - no matter how it was obtained - is the hallmark of authoritarian groups.
Click to expand...
Truth? Untruths that have evolved from the leaks are told over and over even on this forum without the least compunction.

Agitprop and disinformation are the hallmarks. And that is what was done in this interference.
 
lmachine said:
Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity

I wonder what he thinks he needs immunity for?
Click to expand...
I wonder what Hillary is saying or thinking now about the man who perpetrated the “lock her up” chant against her – like “No immunity! Lock him up!”

And compare the charges – Hillary’s carelessness or recklessness by using a private email server for State affairs vs. (if it comes to charges against Flynn) secretly working for foreign countries on their behalf (which may not have been in the interest of the US) AND at the same time being privy to US classified intelligence. Whoa!

Like jaywalking vs. (perhaps) Benedict Arnold espionage.
 
dvdjs said:
Truth? Untruths that have evolved from the leaks are told over and over even on this forum without the least compunction.

Agitprop and disinformation are the hallmarks. And that is what was done in this interference.
Click to expand...
Then tell us which of the released emails were planted as disinformation. Explain how the CNN anchor didn’t actually give debate questions to Ms. Clinton’s campaign. Enlighten us on how a “Catholic Spring” meant to overturn both our doctrine and our hierarchy isn’t really what Mr. Podesta says it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top